Editorial Policy of OrelGUET
The Editing and Publishing Department strictly observes the international ethical rules of scientific publications. The legal basis of publishing ethics is recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics, ethical codes of authoritative international scientific publishing houses Thomson Reuters (Web of Science), Elsevier (Scopus) and chapter 70 Copyright of the Civil code of the Russian Federation.
The basic ethical principles of scientific publications:
1. Conformity of published materials to the profile and subject matter of the edition. The original research paper is the basic type of publications in a scientific journal. There can also be scientific reviews (systematized scientific data on a certain theme received as a result of the analysis of primary sources), editorial matter, reports on conferences, brief communications (announcements) about planned scientific events, biographic materials about well-known scientists, reviews of scientific and academic editions, and etc.
2. Originality of materials. The basic cases of violation of the principle of originality are:
- Plagiarism - intentional misappropriation of authorship of somebody else's product or use of another's product in one’s works without the reference to the author; both word-for-word reproduction, and paraphrases are understood as plagiarism;
- Simultaneous submission of article to several journals;
- Repeat publication of the article or its considerable part, including translation from other language.
3. Data adequacy. Data falsification and fabrication are the roughest violation of scientific ethics. Control and revealing of such cases is an important element of work of editorial board.
4. Prevention of the conflict of interests. The editorial board makes maximum of efforts to avoid the conflict of interests considering the articles. The author has the right to state the person whom he would like to exclude from possible reviewers because of the conflict of interests. The sources of researches financing and the possible conflicts of interests connected with them should be disclosed in each article. Editors and members of the editorial board can publish their manuscripts in the journals, but they should not abuse their position. The reviewing of their works should not be done by the member of the editorial board, but by the invited reviewer in this case.
5. Citing and self-citing. Citing should be used by all means if earlier published data (both authors’, and borrowed ones) are used in the article. If possible reference to the primary source is always given. At the same time, self-citing, citing of co-authors or citing of one’s own scientific group, etc. are not countenanced.
6. Authorship. The authorship specified in article should correspond to the real contribution to scientific research and writing of the article. It is necessary to avoid the phenomena of “guest authorship” (the authorship of the person who did not participate in the research and writing of the article) and “ghost authorship” (absence of authorship of the person who has appreciably contributed to the research and writing of the article).
7. Reviewing. All the scientific articles pass double "blind" review (the reviewer is appointed by the editorial board, the reviewer and the author do not know each other). The articles of the students and post-graduate students are pre-reviewed by the advisor (professor) before sending to the Editing and Publishing Department and are considered only if the response is positive. Contacts of the academic advisor are published.
Regulations for reviewing
- 1. All materials published in the journals of OrelGUET are by all means reviewed and all the necessary scientific and stylistic editing is carried out. The Editorial Board reviews and edits the manuscripts according to the requirements of High Attestation Commission of Russian Federation to the editions of scientific literature.
- 2. The Editorial Board of OrelGUET journals considers the article and the materials reflecting the scientific views, the results and achievements of fundamental and theoretical-applied in the sphere of economic science, pedagogics and others social-humanitarian sciences and certain directions of natural-technological sciences (mathematics, computer science, commodity research, technology and nutrition hygiene). Materials out of line with the themes of the subject areas are not considered.
- Each article must have a review of a specialist (Doctor of Science, Professor). The articles of post-graduate students and applicants for scientific degree must also have a recommendation for publication written by the academic advisor.
- The Chief Editor sends the article to the member of the Editorial Board in charge of the topic. If the member in charge is absent or is the author of the article, the material is sent to the invited reviewers.
- The invited reviewers can be well-known specialists in the sphere who have had published articles for the last 5 years in the reviewed journals. They should have the same or higher scientific degree.
- The reviewer must send a review or motivated refusal within 2 weeks since the date of getting the material by post of Russian Federation or email.
- All the articles having a review of Editorial Board are discussed at the regular meeting and a decision on publication is made. The author is sent a letter concerning the decision (by post or e-mail). It contains the general estimation of the article and notes and remarks. The author has to make all the necessary corrections to the text before it can be put on the layout of the certain issue of the journal. If the article is rejected, the reasons are provided.
8. The reviews are placed in custody in the Editorial Office for 5 years and its copies may be put at the disposal of the Ministry of Education and Science on demand. Editorial Staff puts corresponding reviews of the articles at the disposal of authors and Councils of Experts of High Attestation Commission on demand without the name of the reviewer.
9. The article submitted to the Editor after correction is reviewed again.
10. Editorial reviewing is possible if:
- The member of the Editorial Board in charge of the topic is absent;
- The member is not able to make a review;
- The Editirial Board does not agree with the opinion of the member of the Board;
- The member of the Board is the author of the article.
There should be a decision of the meeting of the Editorial Board to ask a scientist in the corresponding field of science to review the material. He is sent a letter with the request for reviewing, the article and recommended review form.